Dismissed

Mazhar Ahmad and 13 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jun 2018WRIB/4250/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking mandamus to direct the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide a restoration application for recall. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding petitioners suppressed facts regarding possession and pending writ proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as petitioners suppressed facts and there was no reason to issue direction.

Mazhar Ahmad and 13 Others Vs Deputy… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4250 of 2018 Petitioner :- Mazhar Ahmad And 13 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girraj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶3

This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 to decide the recall application of the petitioners dated 26.3.2018.

¶4

Sri Rajesh Kumar Chitragupt, has put in appearance today on behalf of respondent no.2. He states that the respondent no.2 is the purchaser of the disputed plot by way of registered sale deed dated 1.7.1996. He states that proceedings against the vendor of the aforesaid plots was unsuccessfully initiated by the petitioners under the Consolidation Act. The petitioners filed a Revision No.478/1047, before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar which was dismissed by order dated 14.11.2002. Thereafter the reference was made before the D.D.C. which was decided by order dated 31.3.2017. Against that order the petitioners filed a recall application on 8.8.2017, which was dismissed in default on 7.12.2017. The petitioners again filed a recall application for recall of the order dated 7.12.2017, which was dismissed for non prosecution on 22.3.2018. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the restoration application on 26.3.2018 for recall of the order dated 22.3.2018, which is pending and for which a direction has been sought in the present writ petition.

¶5

Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 further states that despite orders of the competent court possession was not being handed over to the respondent no.2 and as such the respondent no.2 filed a Writ - B No.3012 of 2018 in which standing counsel was granted two weeks' time to obtain instruction from the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar who stated on 25.4.2018 that possession has been handed over to the respondent no.2. The aforesaid writ petition is still pending.

¶6

The aforenoted facts have been conveniently suppressed by the petitioners in the present writ petition.

¶7

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any good reason to issue direction as prayed.

¶8

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶9

Order Date :- 4.6.2018/vkg

Mazhar Ahmad and 13 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mazhar Ahmad and 13 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murali Vs Brahma Nand and 6 Others

Phula Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate and 10 Others

Arun Kumar Verma Vs State of U P and 6 Others

Nathuram Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neha and Another Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Kalideen Mishra @ Jai Shankar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another